Movement

A couple of years ago on this blog, I featured work from couple of my students who created short animations for illustration assignments. Those artists, I pointed out, were on the forefront of what’s to come.

Well, it’s here.

A milestone has been passed this week by the New Yorker magazine. Its cover, as seen on digital editions, moves. For me, that’s the first mainstream, print-based magazine to use movement on a cover. The New Yorker is one of the last of the pure illustration venues. The images on the covers are self-contained statements of their illustrator-creators. Like Norman Rockwell’s Saturday Evening Post covers, the images speak for themselves; no headline or article within explains it’s existence. For this traditional venue to embrace this change is a milestone of the media.

In fairness, The New York Times has been tipping their toes in the water of moving images for a couple of years now, with both illustration/animation and photography/video. We’ve also seen illustrated Google home-pages develop from still images to moving and interactive pictures (many created by my ex-students, Jennifer Hom and Kevin McLaughlin). Advertising has lead the way with on-line ads which explore different eye-catching moving visuals. Finding the balance between the quiet meditative still image and the potentially annoying and distracting moving picture, especially in a reading environment like a magazine or a newspaper, will be tricky.

As we see on the New Yorker cover, Christopher Neimann, has created a rainy day view through a windshield in Manhattan. Shortly after you engage with the picture, a raindrop rolls down the surface, followed by another and then another. The still image, combined with the minimal motion creates a quiet and meditative moment. We wait in traffic and wait for another drop.

And so too, we wait for more motion to hit the digital newsstands. Animation grew out of illustration and now we see it growing back together again. As digital devices replace printed matter, more opportunities arise for visual communication options. Are Will Harry Potter newspapers (with video pictures) in our future? Hogwarts or Hogwash? We watch together.

Digital Setback

The new Communication Arts Illustration Annual for 2012 has arrived and not only is there far more work than in previous years, but more interestingly, the percentage of works described as being created by “digital” means is down.  Could it be that the continuous growth of digitally created (or partially digitally created) works have leveled off at around 50%? Could it be subsiding? Only time will tell.

In the 2012 Annual, 48% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.

In the 2011 Annual, 54% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.

In the 2010 Annual, 44% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.
In the 2005 Annual, 29% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.
In the 2000 Annual, 12% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.
In the 1995 Annual,    3% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.
In the 1990 Annual,   .5% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.
In the 1985 Annual,    0% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.
(2012 148 of 311, 2011: 96 of 178, 2010: 90 of 203, 2005: 59 of 207, 2000: 28 of 243, 1995: 6 of 184, 1990: 1 of 183, 1985: 0 of 195) Communication Arts. Determination is made by examining the mediums as listed by the artists. Images whose mediums were unable to be determined were disregarded from calculations.

 

Illustration Trends: Digital Displacement

The 2011 Communication Arts Illustration Annual arrived a few weeks ago; and like last year, I’ve done some calculating. 

In the 2011 Annual, 54% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.

In the 2010 Annual, 44% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.
In the 2005 Annual, 29% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.
In the 2000 Annual, 12% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.
In the 1995 Annual,    3% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.
In the 1990 Annual,   .5% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.
In the 1985 Annual,    0% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.
(2011: 96 of 178, 2010: 90 of 203, 2005: 59 of 207, 2000: 28 of 243, 1995: 6 of 184, 1990: 1 of 183, 1985: 0 of 195) Communication Arts

Further Observation

Of the works that used digital tools, 49% were described as only “digital” and 51% described the works as multi-media including “digital.”

(47 of 178 “digital,” 49 of 178 traditional media plus “digital”)

Illustration 2010: Bodies, Beasts and Birds

In a conversation last year at Rhode Island School of Design, a newly-hired school administrator asked a few illustration professors how she could easily recognize the difference between illustration art and fine art.

“Dragons,” I said, half kidding. “Illustrators draw dragons, but fine artists don’t.”

“And robots,” added another professor.

Which led me to wondering. What do illustrators draw the most? 

There are 319 Illustrations in the 2010 Communication Arts Illustration Annual.

  

85.5%  of the illustrations include a human figure or a body part. (273)

39.5% of the illustrations include an animal or animals. (126)

   10% of the illustrations include birds. (32)

     6%  of the illustrations have neither a figure nor an animal. (19)

     4%  of the illustrations include dogs. (12)

  3.5%  of the illustrations include cats. (11)

  2.5%  of the illustrations include skulls. (8)

     2%  of the illustrations include tigers. (7)

    .5%  of the illustrations include robots. (2)

  .25%  of the illustrations include dragons. (1)

Further Observation

  1.5%  of the illustrations (including above) are by Chris Buselli, RISD instructor.(5) 

   Artwork reproduced by permission of the artist.

Illustration Trends: Ch-ch-ch-changes

The 2010 Communication Arts Illustration Annual arrived a few weeks ago; I’ve collected and enjoyed them for years. The new issue got me to thinking, and to digging into my back issues, and to calculating. Here’s what I found:

In the 2010 Annual, 44% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.
In the 2005 Annual, 29% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.
In the 2000 Annual, 12% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.
In the 1995 Annual,    3% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.
In the 1990 Annual,   .5% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.
In the 1985 Annual,    0% of the entries described “digital” as part of the creation process.
(2010: 90 of 203, 2005: 59 of 207, 2000: 28 of 243, 1995: 6 of 184, 1990: 1 of 183, 1985: 0 of 195) Communication Arts